Center on Children and Families at BROOKINGS August 2012 CCF Brief # 49 Is Retaining Students in the Early Grades Self-Defeating? Martin R. West | 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.797.6000 | fax 202.697.6004 | brookings edu Acknowledgements The Center on Children and Families thanks the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading, the Piton Foundation, and the Birth to Five Policy Alliance for their support in conceiving and funding this policy brief and associated outreach activities. Summary Whether a child is a proficient reader by the third grade is an important indicator of their future academic success. Indeed, substantial evidence indicates that unless students establish basic reading skills by that time, the rest of their education will be an uphill struggle. This evidence has spurred efforts to ensure that all students receive high-quality reading instruction in and even before the early grades. It has also raised the uncomfortable question of how to respond when those efforts fail to occur or prove unsuccessful: Should students who have not acquired a basic level of reading proficiency by grade three be promoted along with their peers? Or should they be retained and provided with intensive interventions before moving on to the next grade? Several states and school districts have recently enacted policies requiring that students who do not demonstrate basic reading proficiency at the end of third grade be retained and provided with remedial services. Similar policies are under debate in state legislatures around the nation. Although these policies aim to provide incentives for educators and parents to ensure that students meet performance expectations, they can also be expected to increase the incidence of retention in the early grades. Their enactment has therefore renewed a longstanding debate about retention’s consequences for low-achieving students. Critics point to a massive literature indicating that retained students achieve at lower levels, are more likely to drop out of high school, and have worse social-emotional outcomes than superficially similar students who are promoted. Yet the decision to retain a student is typically made based on subtle considerations involving ability, maturity, and parental involvement that researchers are unable to incorporate into their analyses. As a result, the disappointing outcomes of retained students may well reflect the reasons they were held back in the first place rather than the consequences of being retained. Recent studies that isolate the causal impact of retaining low-achieving students cast further doubt on the conventional view that retention leads to negative outcomes. Much of this work has focused on Florida, which since 2003 has required that many third graders scoring at the lowest performance level on the state reading test be retained and provided with intensive remediation. Students retained under Florida’s test-based promotion policy perform at higher levels than their promoted peers in both reading and math for several years after repeating third grade; they are also less likely to be retained in a subsequent grade. Although it is too soon to analyze the policy’s effects on students’ ultimate educational attainment and labor-market success, this new evidence suggests that policies encouraging the retention and remediation of struggling readers can be a useful complement to broader efforts to reduce the number of students reading below grade level. Background on Grade Retention Even in the absence of test-based promotion policies, the extent to which America’s school systems have retained low-performing students in the same grade has varied considerably over time. Proponents of retention have long argued that low-performing students stand to benefit from an improved match of their ability to that of their peers and from the opportunity for additional instruction before confronting more challenging material. They also contend that the threat of being held back and the creation of grade cohorts that are more homogenous in ability could yield benefits even for higher-performing students. In the 1960s, however, concerns that retention 2 hinders the social, emotional, and cognitive development of at-risk students led many educators to call for students to be advanced to the next grade with their peers regardless of their academic performance. Although systematic data are scarce, this push for so-called “social promotion” appears to have reduced the incidence of retention nationwide. Conversely, retention rates increased with the advent of standards-based reform in the 1980s and again in some school systems in the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The most comprehensive information on the incidence of retention at present comes from just- released data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR). In 2009-10, OCR for the first time included the number of students retained at each grade level as an element of the data it collects at regular intervals from a large share of the nation’s school districts. Although not a complete census, the nearly 7,000 school districts that participated in the OCR data collection serve more than 85 percent of students in American public schools. The OCR data indicate that 2.3 percent of all students in these districts were retained in the same grade at the close of the 2009-10 school year. However, much of this overall rate reflects retention in high school, when many students fail to accumulate enough credits to advance their academic standing but often repeat only specific courses as a result. Roughly one percent of students were retained in grades K-8, with the largest numbers repeating kindergarten or the first grade. The OCR data also confirm that retention rates are highest among traditionally disadvantaged minorities, who are most likely to suffer from low academic performance. The respective rates for black and Hispanic students were 4.2 percent and 2.8 percent, as compared with just 1.5 percent for whites. Retaining a student in the same grade is a costly educational intervention, if students (as intended) spend an additional year in full-time public education as a result. Given average per pupil spending of roughly $10,700 (the most recent national estimate), the direct cost to society of retaining 2.3 percent of the 50 million students enrolled in American schools exceeds $12 billion annually. This estimate excludes the cost of any remedial services provided specifically to students repeating a grade, as well as any earnings foregone by retained students due to their delayed entry into the labor market. It is perhaps surprising, then, that consensus is lacking as to whether retention yields any benefits at all for students that could offset these costs. Critics of retention contend that students are actually harmed by the trauma of being held back, the challenge of adjusting to a new peer group, and reduced expectations for their academic performance on the part of teachers and parents. They also argue that, once in high school, being over-age for their grade makes students more likely to drop out. As noted above, a large majority of existing studies confirm that students who have previously been retained are at elevated risk for low academic achievement and early dropout. Ernest House of the University of Colorado-Boulder concluded in 1989 that “It would be difficult to find another educational practice on which the evidence is so unequivocally negative.” To the extent that much of the evidence available on a topic suffers from a common flaw, however, a consistency of findings should not increase confidence in their validity. In the case of grade retention, the central challenge facing researchers is to distinguish the effect of being retained from the effects of those factors that triggered the retention decision in the first place. With few exceptions, the available studies of retention have attempted to meet this challenge by comparing the outcomes of retained students to those of equally low-performing, demographically similar students who were promoted. Yet the very fact that a different decision was ultimately taken on whether to retain the student in the same grade casts doubt on the usefulness of these comparisons. For example, educators may be more apt to hold back a student who performs poorly on a standardized test if they believe that the test is an accurate indicator of their true ability than if they believe the student simply had a bad day. Given the stigma associated with repeating a grade, more involved parents may also be less likely to acquiesce in a school’s recommendation that their child be held back. Although speculative, these and many other possible sources of bias make studies relying on standard observational methods an unreliable guide for policy. Fortunately, recently enacted policies tying retention decisions explicitly to performance on state tests provide an opportunity to generate more rigorous evidence on retention’s consequences for 3 low-performing students. Under these policies, students with test scores just below the standard for promotion face a far greater likelihood of being retained than students who met the standard exactly. And because there is considerable measurement error in individual student test scores, these differences in retention probabilities are nearly as good as would be achieved by randomly assigning low-performing students to be either retained or promoted. By comparing the outcomes of students with test scores in a narrow region around the promotion standard, researchers are therefore able to discern the causal impact of being retained for those students. First used in evaluations of a test-based promotion policy adopted by Chicago Public Schools in the mid- 1990s, this quasi-experimental approach to the study of retention has recently been applied in a series of studies of test-based promotion in Florida. Because the Florida policy has served as a model for other states, evidence on its implementation and impact on retained students is of considerable interest.